You are on page 1of 1356

40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury

REPORT 1

Interim --Redacted

Section I.

Introduction

1

Section II.

The Dioceses

13

Roman Catholic Diocese ofAllentown

15

Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie

Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg

65

113

Roman

Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg

149

Roman

Catholic

Diocese

of Pittsburgh

207

Roman

Catholic

Diocese

of Scranton

251

Section

III.

The Church and Child Abuse, Past and Present

297

Section

IV.

307

Section V.

Recommendations of the Grand Jury Appendix of Offenders

315

 

Roman Catholic Diocese ofAllentown

317

Roman

Catholic

Diocese

of Erie

389

Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg

475

Roman Catholic Diocese of Harrisburg

517

Roman

Catholic

Diocese

of Pittsburgh

587

Roman

Catholic

Diocese

of Scranton

799

Society of St. John

877

I.

Introduction

We, the members of this grand jury, need you to hear this.

We know some of you have

heard some of it before.

There have been other reports about child sex abuse within the Catholic

Church.

But never on this scale.

For many of us, those earlier stories happened someplace else,

someplace away. Now we know the truth: it happened everywhere.

We were given the job of investigating child sex abuse in six dioceses - every diocese in

the state except Philadelphia and Altoona -Johnstown, which were the subject of previous grand

juries.

These six dioceses account for 54 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. We heard the testimony

of dozens of witnesses concerning clergy sex abuse.

We subpoenaed, and reviewed, half a million

pages of internal diocesan documents.

They contained credible allegations against over

three

hundred predator priests.

Over one thousand child victims were identifiable, from the church's

own records. We believe that the real number - of children whose records were lost, or who were

afraid ever to come forward - is in the thousands.

Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were pre-

pubescent.

Some were manipulated with alcohol or pornography.

Some were made to masturbate

their assailants, or were groped by them.

Some were raped orally, some vaginally, some anally.

But all of them were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to

protect the abusers and their institution above all

As a consequence of the coverup, almost every instance of abuse we found is too old to be

prosecuted.

But that is not to say there are no more predators.

This grand jury has issued

presentments against a priest in the Greensburg diocese and a priest in the Erie Diocese, who has

been sexually assaulting children within the last decade. We learned of these abusers directly from

1

their dioceses - which we hope is a sign that the church is finally changing its ways.

And there

may be more indictments in the future; investigation continues.

But we are not satisfied by the few charges we can bring, which represent only a tiny

percentage of all the child abusers we saw. We are sick over all the crimes that will go unpunished

and uncompensated.

This report is our only recourse.

We are going to name their names, and

describe what they did - both the sex offenders and those who concealed them. We are going to

shine a light on their conduct, because that is what the victims deserve. And we are going to make

our recommendations for how the laws should change so that maybe no one will have to conduct

another inquiry like this one. We hereby exercise our historical and statutory right as grand jurors

to inform the public of our findings.

This introduction will briefly describe the sections of the report that follow. We know it is

very long.

But the only way to fix these problems is to appreciate their scope.

The dioceses

This section of the report addresses each diocese individually, through two or more case

studies that provide examples of the abuse that occurred and the manner in which diocesan leaders

"managed" it.

While each church district had its idiosyncrasies, the pattern was pretty much the

same. The main thing was not to help children, but to avoid "scandal."

That is not our word, but

theirs; it appears over and over again in the documents we recovered.

Abuse complaints were kept

locked up in a "secret archive." That is not our word, but theirs; the church's Code of Canon Law

specifically requires the diocese to maintain such an archive.

Only the bishop can have the key.

The strategies were so common that they were susceptible to behavioral analysis by the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. For our benefit, the FBI agreed to assign members of its National

Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime to review a significant portion of the evidence received

2

by the grand jury.

Special agents testified before us that they had identified a series of practices

that regularly appeared, in various configurations, in the diocesan files they had analyzed. It's like

a playbook for concealing the truth:

First, make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults

in diocese documents. Never say "rape"; say "inappropriate contact" or "boundary issues."

assign

Second, don't conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel.

Instead,

fellow

clergy

members

to

ask

inadequate

questions

and

then

make

credibility

determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.

Third, for an appearance of integrity, send priests for "evaluation" at church -run psychiatric

treatment centers.

Allow these experts to "diagnose" whether the priest was a pedophile, based

largely on the priest's "self-reports," and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in

sexual contact with a child.

Fourth, when a priest does have to be removed, don't say why.

Tell his parishioners that

he is on "sick leave," or suffering from "nervous exhaustion." Or say nothing at all.

Fifth, even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses,

although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.

Sixth, if a predator's conduct becomes known to the community, don't remove him from

the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized.

location where no one will know he is a child abuser.

Instead, transfer him to a new

Finally and above all, don't tell the police.

Child sexual abuse, even short of actual

penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime.

But don't treat it that way; handle it

like a personnel matter, "in house."

3

To be sure, we did come across some cases in which members of law enforcement, despite

what may have been the dioceses' best efforts, learned of clergy sex abuse allegations.

Some of

these were many decades ago, and police or prosecutors at the time simply deferred to church

officials. Other reports arose more recently, but involved old conduct, and so were quickly rejected

on statute of limitations grounds without looking into larger patterns and potential continuing risks.

We recognize that victims in these circumstances were understandably disappointed there was no

place they could go to be heard.

But we have heard them, and will tell their stories, using the church's own records, which

we reproduce in the body of the report where appropriate.

In the Diocese of Allentown, for

example, documents show that a priest was confronted about an abuse complaint.

He admitted,

"Please help me. I sexually molested a boy." The diocese concluded that "the experience will not

necessarily be a horrendous trauma" for the victim, and that the family should just be given "an

opportunity to ventilate."

despite his own confession.

The priest was left in unrestricted ministry for several more years,

Similarly in the Diocese of Erie, despite a priest's admission to assaulting at least a dozen

young boys, the bishop wrote to thank him for "all that you have done for God's people

The

Lord, who sees in private, will reward."

Another priest confessed to anal and oral rape of at least

15 boys, as young as seven years old. The bishop later met with the abuser to commend him as "a

person of candor and sincerity,"

and to compliment him "for the progress he has made" in

controlling his "addiction." When the abuser was finally removed from the priesthood years later,

the bishop ordered the parish not to say why; "nothing else need be noted."

In the Diocese of Greensburg, a priest impregnated a 17 -year-old, forged the head pastor's

signature on a marriage certificate, then divorced the girl months later. Despite having sex with a

4

minor, despite fathering a child, despite being married and being divorced, the priest was permitted

to stay in ministry thanks to the diocese's efforts to find a "benevolent bishop" in another state

willing to take him on.

Another priest, grooming his middle school students for oral sex, taught

them how Mary had to "bite off the cord" and "lick" Jesus clean after he was born. It took another

15 years, and numerous additional reports of abuse, before the diocese finally removed the priest

from ministry.

A priest in the Diocese of Harrisburg abused five sisters in a single family, despite prior

reports that were never acted on.

In addition to sex acts, the priest collected samples of the girls'

urine, pubic hair, and menstrual blood. Eventually, his house was searched and his collection was

found. Without that kind of incontrovertible evidence, apparently, the diocese remained unwilling

to err on the side of children even in the face of multiple reports of abuse.

As a high-ranking

official said about one suspect priest: "At this point we are at impasse - allegations and no

admission."

Years later, the abuser did admit what he had done, but by then it was too late.

Elsewhere we saw the same sort of disturbing disdain for victims.

In the Diocese of

Pittsburgh, church officials dismissed an incident of abuse on the ground that the 15 -year-old had

"pursued" the priest and "literally seduced" him into a relationship. After the priest was arrested,

the church submitted an evaluation on his behalf to the court.

The evaluation acknowledged that

the priest had admitted to "sado-masochistic" activities with several boys - but the

sado-

masochism was only "mild," and at least the priest was not "psychotic."

The Diocese of Scranton also chose to defend its clergy abusers over its children. A diocese

priest was arrested and convicted after decades of abuse reports that had been ignored by the

church.

The bishop finally took action only as the sentencing date approached. He wrote a letter

to the judge, with a copy to a state senator, urging the court to release the defendant to a Catholic

5

treatment center. He emphasized the high cost of incarceration.

In another case, a priest raped a

girl, got her pregnant, and arranged an abortion.

The bishop expressed his feelings in a letter:

"This is a very difficult time in your life, and I realize how upset you are. I too share your grief."

But the letter was not for the girl.

It was addressed to the rapist.

The church and child abuse, past and present

We know that the bulk of the discussion in this report concerns events that occurred before

the early 2000's.

That is simply because the bulk of the material we received from the dioceses

concerned those events.

The information in these documents was previously kept hidden from

those whom it most affected. It is exposed now only because of the existence of this grand jury.

That historical record is highly important, for present and future purposes.

The thousands

of victims of clergy child sex abuse in Pennsylvania deserve an accounting, to use as best they can

to try to move on with their lives. And the citizens of Pennsylvania deserve an accounting as well,

to help determine how best to make appropriate improvements in the law.

At the same time, we recognize that much has changed over the last fifteen years.

We

agreed to hear from each of the six dioceses we investigated, so that they could inform us about

recent developments in their jurisdictions.

In response, five of the bishops submitted statements

to us, and the sixth, the bishop of Erie, appeared before us in person.

His testimony impressed us

as forthright and heartfelt.

It appears that the church is now advising law enforcement of abuse

reports more promptly.

Internal review processes have been established.

Victims are no longer

quite so invisible.

But the full picture is not yet clear.

We know that child abuse in the church has not yet

disappeared, because we are charging two priests, in two different dioceses, with crimes that fall

within the statute of limitations. One of these priests ejaculated in the mouth of a seven-year -old.

6

The other assaulted two different boys, on a monthly basis, for a period of years that ended only

in 2010.

And we know there might be many additional recent victims, who have not yet developed

the resources to come forward either to police or to the church.

As we have learned from the

experiences of the victims who we saw, it takes time.

We hope this report will encourage others

to speak.

What we can say, though, is that despite some institutional reform, individual leaders of

the church have largely escaped public accountability.

Priests were raping little boys and girls,

and the men of God who were responsible for them not only did nothing; they hid it all.

For

decades.

Monsignors,

auxiliary bishops,

bishops,

archbishops,

cardinals have mostly

been

protected; many, including some named in this report, have been promoted.

Until that changes,

we think it is too early to close the book on the Catholic Church sex scandal.

Recommendations

Grand jurors are just regular people who are randomly selected for service. We don't get

paid much, the hours are bad, and the work can be heartbreaking.

What makes it worthwhile is

knowing we can do some kind of justice.

We spent 24 months dredging up the most depraved

behavior, only to find that the laws protect most of its perpetrators, and leave its victims with

nothing. We say laws that do that need to change.

First, we ask the Pennsylvania legislature to stop shielding child sexual predators behind

the criminal statute of limitations.

Thanks to a recent amendment, the current law permits victims

to come forward until age 50. That's better than it was before, but still not good enough; we should

just get rid of it.

We heard from plenty of victims who are now in their 50's, 60's, 70's, and even

one who was 83 years old. We want future victims to know they will always have the force of the

7

criminal law behind them, no matter how long they live.

And we want future child predators to

know they should always be looking over their shoulder - no matter how long they live.

Second, we call for a "civil window" law, which would let older victims sue the diocese

for the damage inflicted on their lives when they were kids. We saw these victims; they are marked

for life.

Many of them wind up addicted, or impaired, or dead before their time. The law in force

right now gives child sex abuse victims twelve years to sue, once they turn 18.

But victims who

are already in their 30's and older fell under a different law; they only got two years. For victims

in this age range, the short two-year period would have expired back in the 1990's or even earlier

- long before revelations about the institutional nature of clergy sex abuse.

We think that's

unacceptable.

These victims ran out of time to sue before they even knew they had a case; the

church was still successfully hiding its complicity.

Our proposal would open a limited "window"

offering them a chance, finally, to be heard in court.

All we're asking is to give those two years

back.

Third, we want improvement to the law for mandated reporting of abuse.

We saw from

diocesan records that church officials, going back decades, were insisting they had no duty to

report to the government when they learned of child abuse in their parishes.

New laws make it

harder to take that position; but we want them tighter.

report, but only if the abuse of "the child" is "active."

The law penalizes a "continuing" failure to

We're not sure what that means and we

don't want any wiggle room. Make it clear that the duty to report a child abuser continues as long

as there's reason to believe he will do it again - whether or not he's "active" on any particular day,

and whether or not he may pick a different kid next time.

Fourth, we need a law concerning confidentiality agreements. They've become a hot topic

in recent months in sexual harassment cases - but it turns out the church has been using them for

8

a long time. The subpoenaed records contained quite a few confidentiality agreements, going back

decades: payouts sealed by silence. There are arguments on both sides about whether it's proper

to use these agreements in securing lawsuit settlements.

But there should be no room for debate

on one point: no non-disclosure agreement can or should apply to criminal investigations.

If the

subject of a civil lawsuit happens also to concern criminal activity, then a confidentiality agreement

gives neither party either the right or the obligation to decline cooperation with law enforcement.

All future agreements should have to say that in big bold letters.

into a law.

And all this should be enacted

We believe these proposals will assist in the exposure and prosecution of child sexual

abuse, and so it is within the scope of our duty to make them.

But to be honest it's not enough.

We don't just want this abuse punished by criminal and civil penalties.

We want it not to happen

at all.

We think it's reasonable to expect one of the world's great religions, dedicated to the

spiritual well-being of over a billion people, to find ways to organize itself so that the shepherds

stop preying upon the flock.

If it does nothing else, this report removes any remaining doubt that

the failure to prevent abuse was a systemic failure, an institutional failure.

There are things that

the government can do to help.

But we hope there will also be self-reflection within the church,

and a deep commitment to creating a safer environment for its children.

Profiles

This final section of the report is possibly the most important.

It contains profiles of more

than 300 clergy members, from all six dioceses we investigated.

By comparison, estimates of the

number of abusive priests identified since 2002 in the Boston, Massachusetts archdiocese range

from about 150 to 250.

The 2005 Philadelphia archdiocese grand jury report identified over 60

9

priests.

The 2016 Altoona -Johnstown report named about 50 abusers.

largest grand jury report of its kind to date.

We believe ours is the

Each of the profiles is a summary of the abuse allegations against individual priests and of

the church's response over time to those allegations. The profiles are based largely on the wealth

of internal documents surrendered by the dioceses.

In many cases, we also received testimony

from the victims.

And, on over a dozen occasions, the priests themselves appeared before us.

Most of them admitted what they had done.

Even out of these hundreds of odious stories, some stood out.

There was the priest, for

example, who raped a seven-year-old girl - while he was visiting her in the hospital after she'd

had her tonsils out.

Or the priest who made a nine-year -old give him oral sex, then rinsed out the

boy's mouth with holy water to purify him. Or the boy who drank some juice at his priest's house,

and woke up the next morning bleeding from his rectum, unable to remember anything from the

night before.

Or the priest, a registered psychologist, who "treated" a young parishioner with

depression by attempting to hypnotize her and directing her to take off her clothes, piece by piece.

One priest was willing to admit to molesting boys, but denied reports from two girls who

had been abused; "they don't have a penis," he explained. Another priest, asked about abusing his

parishioners, refused to commit "with my history," he said, "anything is possible."

Yet another

priest finally decided to quit after years of child abuse complaints, but asked for, and received, a

letter of reference for his next job - at Walt Disney World.

We came across a file in which the diocese candidly conceded that "this is one of our worst

ones" - but of course told no one about him.

Actually we came across the same statement in the

files of several other priests. Then there was the file with a simple celebratory notation: "bad abuse

10

case. [Victim] sued us

we won."

And this happy note, in a case in which a seven-year-old girl

was molested by a priest from outside the diocese:

In addition to describing the abuse and its handling, each of the profiles also includes a list,

as complete as we could make it, of the subject priest's places of assignment over the course of his

career.

That doesn't mean we received abuse reports associated with each of those assignments.

But the assignment list should provide parishioners with a way to determine whether priests who

were credibly accused of abuse ever served in their area.

We should emphasize that, while the list of priests is long, we don't think we got them all.

We feel certain that many victims never came forward, and that the dioceses did not create written

records every single time they heard something about abuse.

We also couldn't fully account for

out-of-state travel. Many priests who served in Pennsylvania also spent some of their careers in

other parts of the country.

back to diocesan files here.

If they abused children elsewhere, reports might have made their way

But we suspect that a lot did not.

Although this section of our report is as comprehensive as we could make it, we did not

automatically name every priest who was mentioned in the documents. We actually received files

on over 400 priests from the dioceses.

Some of these are not presented here because the

information contained in the file was too scanty to make a reasonable determination about what

had happened.

On other occasions, we present a profile anonymously, because the case reveals a

lot about the diocese's behavior, but nothing significant about the priest's. And in numerous other

cases, the evidence contained in the file was clear, but the misconduct was outside the purpose of

this investigation, which focused on criminal child sex abuse.

As a result, we do not include files

involving sex between priests and adults, substance abuse, or financial wrongdoing, unless these

relate directly to abuse of children.

11

REDACTED -- ONGOING APPELLATE

LITIGATION

Many of the priests who we profile here are dead.

We decided it was crucial to include

them anyway, because we suspect that many of their victims may still be alive - including

unreported victims who may have thought they were the only one. Those victims deserve to know

they were not alone. It was not their fault.

We need to end with this note.

During our deliberations, one of the victims who had

appeared before us tried to kill herself.

From her hospital bed, she asked for one thing: that we

finish our work and tell the world what really happened. We feel a debt to this woman, and to the

many other victims who so exposed themselves by giving us their stories.

will make good on what we owe.

12

We hope this report

II. The Dioceses

13

Roman Catholic Diocese of Allentown

IArchdiocese

Diocese

I Allentown
I

El Altoona-Johnstown

Erie

I I

Greensburg

I I

Harrisburg

1.1 Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

Scranton

Ecclesiastical Province ofPhiladelphia
Ecclesiastical Province ofPhiladelphia

I. General Overview of the Diocese of Allentown, Pennsylvania

The Diocese of Allentown originated as part of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

In 1961,

portions of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia were broken off to create the Diocese of Allentown.

As of 2015, the Diocese had a Catholic population of 258,997, which was 20.04% of the total

population within the five counties. The Diocese maintains approximately eighty-nine parishes,

thirty-four elementary schools, six high schools, and two colleges, and has approximately two

hundred forty priests.

The Diocese encompasses the Counties of Schuylkill, Berks, Carbon,

Lehigh, and Northampton.

II. History of Bishops of the Diocese of Allentown

1)

Bishop Joseph Mark McShea (2/11/1961 through 2/3/1983)

2)

Bishop Thomas Jerome Welsh (2/3/1983 through 12/15/1997)

3)

Bishop Edward Peter Cullen (12/16/1997 through 5/27/2009)

15

4)

Bishop John Oliver Barres

(5/27/2009 through 12/9/2016)

III.

5)

Bishop Alfred Andrew Schlert (8/31/2017 to present)

Additional

Church

Leadership

within

the

Diocese

of

Allentown

Relevant to the Grand Jury's Investigation

The following Church leaders, while not bishops, played an important role in the Diocese

of Allentown' s handling of child sexual abuse complaints.

1)

Monsignor Anthony Muntone

2)

Monsignor Gerald Gobitas

3)

Monsignor Alfred Schlert - (Note: Schlert went on to become Bishop of Allentown.)

IV. Findings of the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury uncovered evidence of child sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic

priests of the Diocese of Allentown.

Evidence showed that priests engaged in sexual contact with

minors, including

grooming and fondling

of genitals and/or intimate body parts

as well

as

penetration of the vagina, mouth, or anus. The evidence also showed that Diocesan administrators,

including the Bishops, had knowledge of this conduct and that priests were regularly placed in

ministry after the Diocese was on notice that a complaint of child sexual abuse had been made.

This conduct was enabling to offenders and endangered the welfare of children.

Evidence also showed that the Diocese had discussions with lawyers regarding the sexual

conduct of priests with children and made settlements with victims.

Further, these settlements

contained confidentiality agreements forbidding victims from speaking about the abuse under

threat of some penalty, such as legal action to recover previously paid settlement monies.

16

Finally, the Grand Jury received evidence that several Diocesan administrators, including

the Bishops, often dissuaded victims from reporting to police or conducted their own deficient,

biased investigations without reporting crimes against children to the proper authorities.

V. Offenders Identified by the Grand Jury

1)

Thomas J. Bender

2)

Thomas J. Benestad

3)

Robert G. Cofenas

4)

Francis J. Fromholzer

5)

James Gaffney

6)

Joseph Galko

7)

Edward George Ganster

8)

Francis T. Gillespie

9)

Edward R. Graff

10) Richard J. Guiliani

11) Joseph D. Hulko

12) Joseph H. Kean

13) Thomas J. Kerestus

14) Francis Joseph McNelis

15) Gabriel Patil

16) Henry Paul

17) Paul G. Puza

18) Dennis A. Rigney

19) Joseph A. Rock

17

20) Gerald Royer

21) Charles J. Ruffenach

22) J. Pascal Sabas

23) William J. Shields

24) Stephen F. Shigo

25) David A. Soderlund

26) Henry E. Strassner

27) Bruno M. Tucci

28) A. Gregory Uhrig

29) Andrew Aloysius Ulincy

30) Ronald Yarrosh

31) Joseph A. Zmijewski

Carmelites

32) David Connell

33) Timothy Johnson

34) Jim Gross

35)

Single Victim Group

Johnson 34) Jim Gross 35) S i n g l e Victim Group 36) Michael S.

36) Michael S. Lawrence

37) William E. Jones

VI.

Examples of Institutional Failure: Fathers Frank Fromholzer, Edward Graff, and Michael Lawrence

The Grand Jury notes the following examples of child sexual abuse perpetrated by priests

within the Diocese of Allentown.

These examples further highlight the wholesale institutional

failure that endangered the welfare of children throughout the Pennsylvania Dioceses, including

the Diocese of Allentown.

These examples are not meant to be exhaustive; rather, they provide a

window into the conduct of past Pennsylvania Bishops and the crimes they permitted to occur on

their watch.

19

The Case of Father Francis J. Fromholzer

05/1958 - 09/1959

06/1959 - 06/1965

06/1962 - 09/1962

03/1963 - 06/1965 06/1965 - 10/1970

10/1970 - 08/1975 08/1975 - 04/1980

04/1980 - 07/1980

07/1980 - 09/1980

11/1982 - 06/1992

06/1992 - 06/1995

06/1995 - 09/2002

10/2002

Known Assignments

Holy Ghost, Bethlehem Allentown Central Catholic High School

Holy Ghost (summer assignment)

Mary, Queen of Peace, Pottsville St. Paul, Reading St. Mary, Hamburg

St. Paul, Reading Sick leave Holy Family Manner, Bethlehem

St. Paul, Allentown

St. Peter, Coplay

St. Paul, Allentown Retired

The case of Father Francis "Frank" Fromholzer highlights the immense challenges faced

by victims when seeking redress from a Diocese that chose to take a position hostile to the victim.

The influence of the institution is evident in many cases.

particularly evident.

In the case of Frank Fromholzer, it is

Fromholzer sexually abused at least two students while serving as a religion teacher at

Allentown Central Catholic High School. On June 12, 2016, the victims testified under oath before

the

Grand

Jury that they were

sexually

abused by Fromholzer

in

1965

when

they were

approximately 13 or 14 years old. One victim was Julianne, now 68 years old.

Julianne recalled that, during a trip to the Poconos in approximately 1964, Fromholzer took

Julianne and at least one other girl for a ride in his car.

The trip was unsupervised and Julianne' s

family was comfortable with the trip since Fromholzer was a trusted priest.

Fromholzer groped

the girls as he encouraged them to take turns sitting next to him.

Fromholzer' s conduct escalated

and he touched Julianne under her clothes.

20

Once at their destination, Fromholzer retrieved a blanket and radio from the car and took

his collar off. Fromholzer told the girls that, while they were on the trip, they were not to call him

Father but to call him Frank.

Julianne testified, "Then we went - he laid out a blanket and he

started kissing, feeling, put his finger in me.

That hurt.

It was confusing because - you were

always told you were going to Hell if you let anybody touch you.

But then you've got Father

doing it."

Julianne described to the Grand Jury the position of power that priests hold within the

Catholic faith. She testified, "They - there wasn't anybody that was more important than, not just

him, but any priest.

They were - and to some degree still are, but they are much above anybody

else in your family or they are God in the flesh."

Julianne went on to describe other incidents after the trip to the Poconos

in which

Fromholzer had sexual or inappropriate contact with her.

She testified that there was a gym in the

basement of the ninth grade building at Central Catholic. Fromholzer would follow her into the

basement and make comments that she gained a little weight and needed to get on a scale.

Fromholzer would then lift her onto the scale from behind, holding her breast to get her on the

scale.

Fromholzer would constantly nuzzle and kiss her neck as well as "kiss and touch."

After

the trip to the Poconos, the touching occurred on top of her clothing and panties.

Julianne told the Grand Jury of an incident in which Fromholzer humiliated her in front of

her religion class. She was participating in a reading of the Passion of Christ around Easter season.

Fromholzer had her read aloud the portion of the story where the words "the cock crows three

times" appear.

Fromholzer had her repeat the words several times, which evoked laughter from

Fromholzer and the boys in the class.

As Julianne left class that day, Fromholzer leaned in and

nuzzled her neck and asked the victim if she knew what a cock was.

21

The victim testified that the abuse stopped only when she moved on to tenth grade and was

no longer in the same building as Fromholzer.

Julianne' s

friend also

testified in

front

of the Grand

Jury

about being

abused

by

Fromholzer.

The second victim was taken to the Poconos by Fromholzer with Julianne.

She was

in ninth grade and approximately

14 years old when the abuse occurred.

On the way

to the

Poconos, she observed Fromholzer rubbing his elbow against Julianne' s breasts.

Once at the

location in the Poconos, the second victim was also sexually abused by Fromholzer.

Fromholzer

began kissing her on the lips and touching her breasts.

Reluctantly, she laid down on a blanket

where Fromholzer, using his hands, proceeded to touch her on her vaginal area, inside her clothing.

The second victim reported the abuse to her principal at the time, Father Robert M. Forst.

She told Forst about the trip to the Poconos and how Fromholzer touched her and her friend

inappropriately. Forst responded by indicating to the second victim that the discussion they were

having had "ended." Forst told her that she was expelled from school and indicated she needed to

bring her father to the school.

The second victim came from a single-parent home in which her

mother had left after no longer being able to live with her father. Both parents were alcoholics and

her father was physically abusive.

When her father arrived at the school, there was a meeting

between the second victim, her father, and Forst.

The second victim recalled Forst telling her,

"Now, I want you to tell that story that you said - the made-up story that you said about the priest

to your father - with your father here."

She again told them about how she was abused by

Fromholzer.

Her father did not believe her and proceeded to drag her home, yelling at her and

slapping her along the way. When they finally got home, she was beaten more by her father, this

time with a belt so that the belt buckle would strike her.

22

The second victim told the Grand Jury that the school then failed her in English and

Algebra, two courses that she loved.

She expressed to the Grand Jury how hard it was to talk of

the abuse since she had not told anyone most of her life. The abuse haunted the second victim her

entire life, resulting in two marriages that ended in divorce. Talking about the abuse she endured

at the hands of Fromholzer, she testified, "You can't get rid of it.

You don't talk about it.

It is

always there."

Coming from a broken home, she had counted on the understanding of priests and

nuns.

The second victim said that, after being expelled for reporting being sexually abused by

Fromholzer, she felt "worthless."

The second victim broke years of silence when she testified before the Grand Jury.

Her

friend, Julianne, told the Grand Jury that it took her until she was in her thirties, nearly twenty

years later, to find the courage to try to report the abuse to someone in the Diocese. Unfortunately

for Julianne, she tried to report the abuse to another priest, Father Weasel. Weasel was considered

a family friend. When the victim began to tell Weasel of the abuse, he stopped her and told her,

"No, I don't want to hear it.

You go to confession and you pray for him."

As a result, Julianne

said nothing more about the abuse until she was unable to stay silent any longer.

Julianne reported Fromholzer's conduct to Monsignor John Murphy of St. Thomas Moore

Parish.

As she tried to confess the abuse, Murphy told her, "Don't say the name."

At the time

Julianne tried to report the abuse to Murphy in the 1980's, Fromholzer was continuing to practice

as a priest at St. Paul's Church in Allentown.

It was not until approximately August 2002, after the Boston Globe broke the story of child

sexual abuse within the Archdiocese of Boston, that Julianne was ready to pursue reporting

Fromholzer's

criminal conduct to law enforcement.

She

contacted

the Allentown

Police

Department to file a police report and informed the police that Fromholzer was still working at a

23

church that had a grade school. Julianne also personally reported the abuse to the District Attorney

and informed him that Fromholzer was still working at a church with a grade school. The District

Attorney elected not to pursue the matter and cited the statute of limitations.

Julianne told the Grand Jury that, if it were not for the clergy abuse being revealed in the

Boston Archdiocese, she would not have come forward to report the abuse she endured. She also

indicated how grateful she was, having been able to tell the Grand Jury about the abuse and

Fromholzer.

Julianne subsequently

became involved with a clergy abuse victim's network.

She

testified that she is aware from fielding phone calls that there are hundreds of victims who have

not yet come forward. She described calls in the middle of the night with full-grown men weeping

into the phone as they recounted their sexual abuse at the hands of Roman Catholic priests.

This

is a volunteer effort on Julianne' s part, motivated by her own victimization and a desire to help

others.

At the close of her testimony, Julianne thanked the Grand Jury for listening to her story

and providing her the opportunity to express their pain. Julianne stated, "

so what does it mean

to have somebody care? It means a lot. So I thank you."

On September 1, 2016, the Grand Jury issued a subpoena to the Diocese for any and all

records related to clergy or church officials against whom complaints of child sexual abuse had

been made. Records received by the Office of Attorney General from the Diocese numbered into

the thousands. The testimony of the victims was cross-referenced with the records of the Diocese.

Internal Diocesan records do not contain any information from Julianne' s reports to Weasel or

Murphy.

However, it is evident that, once Julianne made contact with the Diocese in 2002, the

Diocese and its attorney, Thomas Traud, attempted to undermine and discredit Julianne and her

family

24

In 2002, the Diocese was made aware of reports of child sexual abuse against Fromholzer

by Julianne and her friend, Victim Two. Fromholzer was still in active ministry. Internal Diocesan

records show that the Diocese immediately disregarded these complaints as false.

Fromholzer "volunteered" to retire.

However,

On September 3, 2002, a fax was sent to Monsignors Schlert and Gobitas.

The fax bore

the timestamp of 09:55 A.M. from the Traud Law Offices.

After some discussion regarding an

attempt to schedule a meeting with Julianne, Traud reported that he had received information from

a relative of Monsignor Leo Fink.

This informant told the Diocese that she had been the closest

of friends with Julianne in high school and that they shared every secret. She reported that Julianne

had once danced as a go-go dancer in the 1960's and that she believed her to be sexually active.

Traud' s informant stated that she believed it possible that Julianne was one of the girls who had

an affair with a coach at Central Catholic. The informant reported that Julianne also had a family

member once go to prison.

Traud reported all of this to the Diocese, specifically to Schlert and

Gobitas.

He went on to note that he knew his informant well and that she had been "so candid and

honest."

Having received a report that one of their priests had violated children, the Diocese and its

attorney immediately began to exchange information meant to discredit the victim with unrelated

and irrelevant attacks on her and her family

Moreover, the fact that information that a Central

Catholic coach may have been sexually abusing students was used as evidence against the victim.

In reality, it is the report of yet another crime not reported to the police.

A memorandum dated September 11, 2002, by Gobitas, recorded a meeting of September

10 between Julianne, her attorney, Gobitas, Schlert, and Traud.

In that memorandum, Julianne' s

account of abuse is recorded. Julianne stated that there was a witness to at least one assault. The

25

Diocese recorded the meeting as positive and amicable. The next day a memo was generated by

Gobitas that recorded his interview of that witness.

The witness recalled that she observed

Fromholzer rub his arm on Julianne' s breasts on one occasion in a car in front of Allentown

Catholic High School. The witness identified another, possibly a third, victim by first name.

26

FILE

FILE D I O C E S E OFD ALLENTOWN SEelt.ETIOUT F O R . C

DIOCESE OFD ALLENTOWN

SEelt.ETIOUT FOR. CLERGY

MiliVIORA.NIIII,TNI

gititIPTg'Opa:FIKO.M.11,9011-,F

,44

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE:

MONSIGNOR GEttA1.0 E. GOBITAS

13 SEPTEMBER 2002

11111111111MMIIIIMIN
11111111111MMIIIIMIN
E. GOBITAS 13 SEPTEMBER 2 0 0 2 11111111111MMIIIIMIN y myself on rriday,13 September 2Q02 at

y myself on rriday,13 September 2Q02 at MO a.m. in

the. Chaneery:

Mit she -alle ed to have witnessed him inappropriately rubbing his arm over Juliann

I met with

.said that she was never

sexually assaulted by

Father Frornholzer

n e v e r sexually assaulted by Father Frornholzer High: b r e a s

High:

breasts on one, occasion in a car in front of Allentown Central Catholic

a c a r i n front of Allentown Central Catholic S e h o o

Sehool. when she anr101111. were both freshmen.

was seated in the back stated. the Father

seat of the car,,

Juliann was in. the Middle in the front seat.

Promholzer's hands never went underneath ftrliarkre's clothing.

MEN said she: knows assaulted by Father FrOmholzer. gave: her My card and encouraged

min stated

gave: her My card a n d encouraged min stated the truth 3Truliann's o f a

the truth3Truliann's

of another girl narned MO who may have, been

She said that she still, has some contact wiihas.

her to haveilat call me,

thiif 0.e, does, not need any counseling she just wanted to confirm

The Witness Interview Memo

27

On September 16, 2002, at 2:48 p.m., a fax was sent from Traud Law Offices to Schlert

and Gobitas. The message contained impressions of the meeting on September 10th. Among other

things, the memo noted that Tom Traud found Julianne to be "overly dramatic in that there were

some times

she was crying in the meeting" and that "this woman made an awful amount of

assumptions that just were unwarranted."

This pattern of investigating the victim continued through 2004 in letters from Traud dated

January 22, 2004, and April 12, 2002.

In the first letter to Gobitas and Schlert, Traud noted that

Julianne was recently in the news and was pursuing her lawsuit and that he received information

from a local attorney.

The attorney told Traud that Julianne's daughter was a witness for the

Commonwealth in a murder case. Traud noted that, because Julianne became involved, she could

either be "a mother looking out for her child; or, maybe this is a woman who repeatedly wants her

fifteen minutes of fame." In the second letter, Traud informed the Diocese that Julianne' s husband

was associated with the Christian Motorcyclists Association which Traud labeled the husband's

brainchild.

In contrast to the efforts to investigate and discredit the victims of child sexual abuse who

dared

to report their abuse to

the Diocese

and/or report

to civil authorities,

the internal

documentation

regarding the diocesan investigation of Fromholzer is starkly different.

The

Diocese asked Fromholzer if he did it.

Fromholzer said no.

Fromholzer then suggested it might

be a good time for him to retire.

The report of abuse and subsequent investigation of the victim all occurred on the watch

of Cullen.

In 2009, Banes took command of the Diocese.

In an effort to comply with Diocesan

policy and state law, the Diocese formally reported the complaints against Fromholzer to the

28

District Attorney. Similarly, Julianne's lawsuit against the Diocese was dismissed due to the civil

statute of limitations. She has received no recovery or recompense for her suffering.

The Grand Jury finds that the Diocese of Allentown and the Allentown Central Catholic

High School knew full well the criminal conduct of Fromholzer.

Yet, knowing that Fromholzer

was preying on young girls, the Diocese and School took no action.

The victims were told to let

it go. When these victims came forward again years later, they were met with disbelief and scorn.

Ultimately, internal records

Fromholzer to be credible.

show that the Diocese itself deemed Julianne' s complaint against

Victims are reluctant to report to law enforcement or take any action for fear of retaliation

from the Dioceses.

That retaliation and intimidation takes many forms.

Originally Julianne did